Michaelsguardian.blogspot.com - A travel in scripture, Bible prophecy and the Word of our God and our Lord Jesus Christ through the eyes and soul of the last witness and chosen vessel, Michael surnamed Jackson

God: Reconnect to Him

The Conspiracy against God is about "The Word", and the profaning of His Holy Name within us. Adam fell in the garden, breaking the direct connection to God.
Jesus, the "last Adam" was a quickening Spirit, the Word made Flesh, and the only one with whom we can re-establish our relationship with God.
Michael's story is still unfolding. He is the one who is, is not.
But Jesus is the only name given under heaven by which we must be saved. Many are trying to rewrite HIStory.
We were given a help to instruct us. Learn more "here".

Friday, September 3, 2010

Branca Spawn Still Misrepresenting Facts

center>Michael and LOYAL Cameraman, Hamid

Sept 2, 2010 – Branca's Spawn Still Misrepresenting Facts

Branca’s little “Mini-me” is at it again, trying unconvincingly to convince people that both Sony and Branca were oh-so-good to Michael. It has gotten to the point now where this blogger is doing a better job at convincing us he works for Sony, then he is at convincing anyone that Branca worked for Michael between 2003 and 2006. Branca may have been working AGAINST Michael, but certainly not for him.

First issue up for bid is the statement the blogger made in paragraph 2:

Now the blogger may claim not to be Taraborrelli and that may be true . . . but who else do we know who first came to light in front of Michael Jackson fans, writing an article in the Huffington Post about media bias? Hmmmm . . . It wasn’t Terrible-ellie. think about this one. Its hard, I know. :o)

Further down the blogger states that the media did not report on several of Michael's complaints outside of the promotion of Invincible. The blogger lists these as:

Michael’s family, friends and fans know that John Branca was not fired until 2003, so my question is, why was John Branca, Michael’s entertainment attorney, not handling or speaking on these matters? Did he need that much time to complete his paper shredding?

- Michael Claimed that Mottola called Irv Gotti a “fat, black nigger”. The media did in fact cover this as this you tube video of those news items here , and here on MTV and many other links to news items showing that Michael calling Mottola a racist was probably the most covered of the battle with Sony.

Tommy Mottola - The Gate Keeper of Michael's Music?

- Third, the blogger claims the news did not cover the fact that Michael believed the rights to his masters were shortly due to transfer to him, that Michael found his lawyer John Branca was also representing Sony (in some capacity, like the contract) and Michael suspected that Branca and Sony were working together to defraud him of his share of the Sony/ATV catalog. In another paragraph he mentions also the issue of “What More Can I Give” and Sony’s refusal to let Michael release it.

In explanation of all of the above, the blogger concedes that Sony did indeed under promote “Invincible”. That was nice of him. He then goes on to explain that the “What More Can I Give” charity project was refused by Sony because the producer, Marc Schaffel was a porn producer and Sony didn’t want him associated with anything they did.

The FACT is, Michael was the one who was sued for FIRING Marc Schaffel for that very reason. Sony couldn’t give a rat’s behind about Marc Schaffel’s background. Look at some of the other artists they promote! A deposition of Michael explaining why he fired Marc Schaffle when he found out during the taping of ANOTHER PROJECT in 2004 is right here. The blogger will try to claim that Michael was told by Sony, but during this interview, it is made clear who informed Michael. Sony had no information on Marc Schaffel in 2001 when “What More Can I Give” video was produced. Schaffel was hired by Michael, not Sony as evident in the lawsuit filed by Schaffel against Michael. Sony really had nothing to do with Schaffel. It was Schaffel who backed Michael against Sony during Michael’s protests against Sony. Source

The blogger states: “Clearly, if Sony had released the single and video, and there had been a public outrage and backlash, Sony would have been accused of sabotaging Jackson's career by releasing it.” This is balderdash. If the backlash from Michael’s speech about Sony and the sabotaging of the “Invincible” album didn’t bother Sony, why would they care what people thought about letting a charity single out on the market? Most of the rumors put out about Michael were orchestrated by Sony anyway and were much worse than Schaffel' previous job.

In another paragraph the blogger states that Sony has a history of giving less than profitable royalty rates. This wasn’t Michael’s problem. Michael was making the industry record of 31%. It was the lack of accounting and under reporting of sales that prompted many artists of means to do so, to have their labels audited almost yearly, to make sure they weren’t being cheated out of what they were contractually supposed to be paid. The bribing of radio stations was just a slight embarrassment to Sony.

The next paragraph the blogger claims that in 2006 Sony had plenty of opportunity to take control of the ATV catalog. The fact is, they tried. They had been trying since 1991. They failed with Chandler, they failed with shelving Michael’s album, they failed with the mass media rumors and they failed with the 2005 accusations and trial. As Dick Gregory said in one interview, the only thing left to do was to kill him. Source

The blogger further states that Michael enlisted the help of Sony in 2006 with his loans. This is misrepresented according to the documents the blogger himself posts as reference. The help Michael got with his loans was from Fortress for both the $30 million Neverland refinance and the ATV backed $270+ million loan in 2006.

John Branca, the GoodFellow

Now the next exhibit had me laughing. The blogger uses a fraud complaint against John Branca and McClain by Brian Oxman, as proof that Branca was working for Michael between 2003 and 2006 AND AS PROOF that Michael asked Sony for financial help. Their exhibit . In this same exhibit, Oxman’s filed complaint highlights the embezzlement activities of Branca and Mottola in regard to the funneling of Michael’s money to offshore accounts, and deferred to “exhibit C” in the complaint, which is further down in this pdf file.

In the Oxman complaint it states the Michael paid Branca $15 million to get back John’s 5% interest in Michael’s catalog. This is NOT proof of retainment or appointment. On page 10, line 3, the complaint states that Michael and John signed an agreement not to have anymore further to do with each other on April of 2006 which was the final turning over of Branca’s 5% interest in Sony/ATV. This is not proof Branca was working for Michael. It is exactly what it says in the complaint, an agreement to sell for $15 million the 5% share Branca had of the Sony/ATV and have nothing further to do with Michael or his business. Charlie needs to learn how to read legal documents.

Page 16 should be of particular interest to fans following this case. The Interfer report against John Branca and Tommy Mottola. This is the same “Interfer” that the same blogger poster mentioned in his blog update , where he posted a falsified court transcript praising Branca and implicating Weitzner.

Page 16 also describes intelligence sent to Justice Department by Branca stating the business relationship he had with Michael and that his services had been terminated. This is during the investigations for the 2005 trial. So if this blogger insists that Branca was rehired in 2003 and resigned in 2006, maybe this blogger should start actually reading the resources he uses. Better yet, maybe he should remind Branca of what Branca himself sent to the Justice Department before sending him off on a blogging campaign for Sony P.R.?

Page 17 of complaint is a letter from Branca’s firm to Michael asking Michael to sign an agreement for a J.C. Penny commercial. It is dated July of 2002 with that scratched out and handwritten beneath “February 5, 2003”, which is two days after the dated letter in which Michael fired Branca. Why would someone redate and resend a letter to Michael seven months later? Surely the production crew didn't want THAT LONG to get permission to use a song for a commercial! Looks like a sad attempt to try to convince someone that Branca was still working for Michael, LOL!

Pg. 19 is another letter in regard to the use of an agreement for the use of “You are my Life”. Again it has a “resent” date handwritten in for February 5 of 2003 (Why didn't they just bump it up a month to make it look more convincing?). There are more on the following pages of similar request. This is not proof that Branca is working for Michael. As a matter of fact these are agreements for use of Songs in which Sony still has control of at this point in time. Branca conflict of interest was that he was working for Sony at the same time he was working for Michael. After February 3, of 2003, t his was no longer the case. Letters hand dated two days after being fired by a letter than may not have reached him yet is not proof of employment. This did not stop Branca from representing Sony in the use of Michael’s songs for commercials or other entertainment uses.

Branca and His other Partner in Estate Crimes, Howard Weitzman

Page 21. This one is interesting. It is an agreement to receive 5% fees for all Michael Jackson Company owned businesses that they bring in revenue for. The problem is the date “October 19, 2003” and Michael’s signature at the bottom, which is not Michael’s signature:

This is Michael’s signature

And THIS is Michael’s signature

The one on the page 21 document looks like the same forgery that appears on the 2002 will. On closer look Michael’s signature bears a striking resemblance to Branca’s signature loops, spacing and directional change on this document. Document page 24 is the proposed letter in which the Sony blogger refers to in regard to Sony refinancing the Fortress Loan of $300 million. Let’s read through this and forget the screen shot, since you can’t scroll through the document on the screen shot.

In the first paragraph Sony refers to “facilitating the contemplated new loan agreement with Fortress and SME (Sony Music Entertainment) . . .” and they mention “New Horizon Trust” (owners of that trust are MJPT, MJATV Publishing trust and the bank which is Fortress). They reiterate the terms in paragraph two. Among them are the agreement by Branca’s firm to waive any 5% fee that would have been due him because Michael is buying Branca out of that 5% Sony ATV.

Page 25, the agreement goes through Sony’s right to first refusal and the right to purchase 50% of Michael’s share of the ATV catalog should Michael default on his loan (pay attention to this). Paragraph four reiterates that “The Firm” (Branca and co.) will not receive any funds from the exercise of of any transactions on the Sony/ATV and states Michael’s payment to John Branca for the 5% that Branca used to own of the ATV as stated further up in this blog.

What this looks like as you read through it, is an agreement between Sony and Michael that in any further dealings, Branca and firm are to have no part in any further profiting from any business conducted with musical compositions in regard to Michael’s businesses.

I will stop there for a minute and remind you of my previous postings on the Transitional lawsuit on these two blog updates:

During 2005 (the trial) several things happened with two of Michael’s loans. In order of occurrence, Prescient through Transitional sought and chose Fortress Investments to provide the capital for Michael’s loans in early 2005 (during the time that Randy and Don were supposedly forcing Michael to sign papers he didn’t want to sign). Then even though stories that Michael refused to sign are in the news, there is a signed document for January of 2005. In February Stabler and Dash confirm deal, but Bank of America sells both loans to Fortress in May of 2005. In March of 2006, Fortress refinances the loans (the April 2005 document in which Sony helps negotiate on the condition that Branca and firm stays out of it) by creating a new “New Horizon Trust”, which according to the exhibit in the Oxman complaint is OWNED by MJPT, MJ ATV Publishing Trust and the Bank which is FORTRESS. This is getting interesting.

Condensed, this is an agreement in which Sony obtains the right to either purchase half of Michael’s 50% share of the Sony/ATV if Michael’s loan should go into default, or to have rights to first refusal if Michael should need to sell, or if his creditor should need to sell the collateral, which is Michael’s half of the Sony/ATV catalog. There is no listed sum or amount in this agreement as to how much Sony would pay Michael’ for half of his share. Also as terms of this agreement is the removal of John Branca from the Sony/ATV board and his 5% share in return for Michael’s payment for such of $15 million.

This is NOT an agreement for Michael to make more music for Sony, this is not a music contract extension and it is NOT proof that John Branca worked for Michael. One interesting note however is that this is a notarized document by notary Susan Cobb. Michael’s signatures and Katherine’s signatures and even Prince Abdullah’s signatures appear, but there are none in the spaces required for John Branca. Why? It’s a notarized document. If all signatures are not present upon notary, is this document even legal?

The blogger stated that Michael enlisted the help of Sony for these loans. Michael did not obtain a loan from Sony, Michael wanted Branca off the Sony/ATV Board to prevent him from profiting off the mess Branca got him into. That is why the agreement with Sony. Sony HAD to agree or face the possibility of a third party, a bank, co-owning the Sony/ATV publishing business. Again, to refresh the memory of the Sony/Branca blogger, is the statements made by Michael on a radio interview with Jesse Jackson. Source Part 1 , Part 2. Michael was well aware of the breadth of the conspiracy around him. When Michael left the country for Bahrain, he stopped giving interviews. We know why. It is still going on. The 2005 trial and it's investigations has never really ended. To continue . . .

Page 31 on Oxman complaint is page two of a letter that appears further up in the complaint, an agreement for John Branca to be paid for his 5% share of Sony/ATV. It is important to note that John Branca between 2003 and April of 2006 still had that 5% interest in the Sony/ATV catalog. He was not working for Michael, he was working for Sony. Michael had fired Branca from representing him or his music businesses, however Michaeland Sony were still obligated to pay Branca 5% of of the revenue Sony/ATV generated. This is why, when Michael renegotiated the loans and Sony wanted part in the refinancing (to avoid a third party control of the ATV) Michael wanted no part of Branca profiting from any such deal. Page 33 is signatures that do not look like Michael’s. Just My opinion.

Documents after this are of earlier years as exhibits for Oxman.

Nowhere in these documents does it mention Barclay’s or HBSC Bank which according to this article was part of this Sony-assisted financing deal:

“At the time, Mr. Jackson was in danger of defaulting on a $270 million loan held by hedge fund Fortress Investment Group LLC. As part of the agreement under which Barclays ultimately refinanced that debt, Mr. Jackson granted Sony an option to buy half of his stake in the company at any time for a fixed price of $250 million. At the time that was a generous valuation, but Sony/ATV's value has since soared to around $2 billion.”Source

This article above was posted on June 21, 2010. The Neverland Fortress loan was bought by Colony Capital. In 2006, Fortress refinanced the $300 million loan through the “New Horizon Trust”, which is mentioned in the exhibit included in Oxman’s complaint (The firing of Branca from Sony/ATV contract with Michael mentioned above). “New Horizon Trust” as it stated in that contract was co-owned by MJ Publishing Trust, MJ ATV Publishing Trust, and Fortress. So where is Barclay’s and HBSC in this agreement?

If anyone has a copy of that refinancing contract with Fortress in 2006, please email me or message me. This is the missing link.

We’ve established that John Branca did not work for Michael between 2003 and 2006 (for the 4th or 5th time) as asserted by Sony-blogger. And according to that agreement in 2006, Michael did not have an agreement with Sony over his music because he trusted them. He had an agreement with Sony for a refinancing deal with Fortress for Michael to be able to use the Music Catalog as collateral. Sony entered into this agreement for fear of a third party further splitting ownership of the catalog and as per this agreement Sony was to fire Branca from his position in Sony/ATV with Michael buying his 5% share for $15 million.

I am sure the actual refinancing agreement would tell us the relationship of HBSC and Barclay’s, but they are not at all mentioned in this agreement.

I want to sincerely THANK Sony-blogger for providing the proof that Interfer DID INDEED investigate Branca during the period of discovery for Michael’s 2005 Trial and that Branca himself did indeed send requested information back to the U.S. Justice Department during investigations for the trial in 2004-2005 admitting that Michael had INDEED terminated him.

Something else of interest which is not completely off topic.

The succession of entities involved in that refinance deal:

Prescient – Transitional – Fortress – New Horizon Trust.

What does that mean?

I don’t know . . . Maybe Branca does. :o)

Saturday I will post about Michael’s lawsuits because I know I will not have time to finish that before tomorrow. I will probably be too busy fielding questions from this and cleaning the comments from attacks.

Bonnie,Thank you for all your hard efforts to educate people. You truly make a difference! There is something definitely wrong with Michael's signature. As long as these "stamp" signatures are an option, anyone withPower of Attorney could have used them on behalf of Michael. That would explain signatures on the will, the AEG contract, and the multitude of deals Mr.Dileo was striking on behalf of Michael without him even knowing.

Wonderful job Bonnie. Great research. I do read that blog(better the enemy you know). Almost everything posted over there is slanted to cast Branca in a favorable light. Very telling that the post regarding Michael's mom and kids(the inheritance) is said to have been removed. No wonder; because the tone of that particular blog was very telling. I hope you had a chance to read it just for information sake. The more a person tries to fix, pound an idea into my head, the more suspicious I get. The last blog post of the Branca cheerleader is once again casting aspersions AEG's way and listing the source to excerpts from Leonard Rowe's book. This person does not respect Mr.Rowe, but Mr. Rowe's stance against AEG helps his/her story. :) Scramble much. The chess pieces just keep on movin'.

Bonnie - your comment about Michael's signatures that the sig on the letter (not Michael's) appears the same as the sig on the forged will and both seem similar to Branca's signature (the loops), that appears all too correct! And about that Will, Rowe's book says Randy J. has a tape from Sharpton verifying that Michael was in NYC on July 7, 2002, NOT in LA. If Rowe is telling the truth, why is the administration of this fake 2002 Will going forward? Why hasn't Randy (or Sharpton) come forward with this "tape" showing Michael in NYC on 7/7/2002? Another unanswered question.

And, yes, JOMC, Rowe does not speak highly of AEG in his book; although I think Rowe self-promotes, I agree with his stance on AEG and Phillips concerning their dealings with Michael. According to Rowe, Michael would have come out of the tour with nothing, due to how his contract with AEG was constructed. No wonder AEG didn't want to give a copy to Katherine.

These discussions on these comments are so very important. I can't tell you how much I appreciate everyone taking part. Everyone looks at pieces of information in a slightly different way and the comments and point you all bring up really help me with ideas on where to concentrate research.

There is something I want to point out in regard to the confusion as to who is actually with the Jacksons and I have seen NOBODY else mention this:

You can almost tell who the Jackson's trust by who was invited to and attended the memorial and the funeral. Who did we see an NEITHER ONE?

Good Friend Taraborrelli

John BrancaJohn McClainMalnikRatnerWeitzmanBandier

Who was at one or the other events?Randy Phillips (at both)Kenny Ortega (memorial)SheildsMac (Macaulkin)Other friendsMesereau and YuTaylor (funeral)The family andmany other unidentified people

Who the heck is that fedora old man in the second row at the funeral behind Katherine and opposite Tom Mesereau and Susan Yu? It's not Gibb, I know what he looks like. This guy had like manicured nails and he was on his cell phone a lot. Is he family? He's on the family side! At both events.

NOw if Randy Phillips was so hated and suspect by the family, then why would he have been invited to the funeral? That was a family and friend event.

Why would AEG pay for the memorial? There was no obligation to do so. THAT is very telling.

The jury is still "out" for me regarding Rowe as well. But yes, I questioned where a lot of those "good friends and associates" of Michael's were at his actual funeral as well. The Memorial, I can understand their absence as primarily that was intended for MJ's fans. So, that was our moment, so to speak, to pay our respects. But, the absence at the actual funeral by the "top list"? Yeah...red flags time.

As for why AEG would pay for the Memorial, that too struck me as odd. But, given the fact that Anschutz is supposedly a devoutly religious man, it makes sense a bit when you look at it from that angle.

Now, as for who the man in the fedora at the Funeral was/is...That's got me stumped as far as certainty goes. I always thought it was Barry Gibb, and I tend to lean toward that being so. It does look quite a bit like him, and he's aged quite a bit since he and his brothers were at their peak. You have to remember, Michael was one of his kids' Godfather as well. So, it makes sense that he'd be there, and likely on the family side.

The guy in the fedora at the funeral, if that's the same guy who was pictured at the memorial dressed in a fedora and sitting close behind the family, why would Barry Gibb have to show up in a disguise at a memorial and funeral for his close friend? Shortly after both events, there were comments on various sites that this fedora guy was a disguised Michael!

Bonnie, you are right about none on the top list being at either event and I hadn't even thought of that til you raised it. As for why Phillips, Ortega, et al were at the memorial (Phillips at both events), with AEG owning Staples he could probably go there at his own discretion; as for the funeral, I would guess AEG wanted a rep there. As for paying for the memorial at Staples, it seems to be the least AEG could do, just my take.

Lady - "That's got me stumped as far as certainty goes. I always thought it was Barry Gibb, and I tend to lean toward that being so. It does look quite a bit like him, and he's aged quite a bit since he and his brothers were at their peak."

It's not Gibb, I have a pic of them side by side. The skin on that man's face is way too young and healthy to be the real Gibb. Plus the hands are different. There were other celebrities also alot closer to Michael that deserved that seat more than Gibb (sorry, no disrespect to Gibb).

June - AEG Owning Staples would not give Kenny or Phillips license to just show up for someone's memorial. They are the ones that planned the whole memorial, which is why I thought there were there. But Phillips being at the FUNERAL??? (Did not see Kenny). AEG does not own Forest Lawn.

I was looking for Tom Barrack at either of these events and did not see him. That could mean nothing. I just put that out there to see if anyone else possibly saw him. He's not hard to miss . . . Daddy Warbucks. :o)

I want to point out that I also don't believe the man in the Fedora was Michael in disguise either. Because IF Michael was still around, he would have been tucked away somewhere. However, during one of Michael's interviews I remember him talking about how he would send people out disguised LIKE him as a decoy so he could get away or get from a concert arena to the hotel or visa versa . . . Michael had been doing that ALL HIS LIFE. Became an expert at it.

Michael also had a sense of humor. I could see him disguising someone to look like him in a disguise. I could totally see him doing that. I mean if you have to go into hiding, why not have fun with it?

I did a little internet searching on the man in the white fedora at the funeral. There are many discussions on different websites about this topic, and no answer! Some think he looks like Rick Baker, who was the make-up artist for Thriller. It looks like the person was trying to be mysterious, and may even still be enjoying the speculation as to who he is.

@ Bonnie: I agree with your summarization about Mr. Fedora (that's what I've come to call him). I don't believe it's Michael in disguise either. But yes...MJ was well-known for his disguises over the years. Let me see, there's the "burn victim" and then the "bearded one" he went to some theme park with Lisa Marie in. There are others, but you get the gist of it all. LOL...

Psst! Blogger responded to their own entry today the following, and I thought it amusing to share...

"Those who believe that Sony and the estate executors are solely responsible for Michael's death will be floored by the evidence Conrad Murray's defense team is going to bring to the table in January of 2011."

Of course, I responded to it. I made the point that I wasn't an idiot, and that I'm certain that Sony and the Estate are not the ONLY culprits in this whole nightmare. However, I did mention that they were a big chunk of the pie.

Just wanted to point out - Kenny Ortega was at the funeral, there's plenty of footage showing him.The fedora man is food for thought, no doubt. There were/are also a lot of questions going round on who the blonde lady (both at the memorial and at the funeral, again) would be.

Bonnie – thank you so much for clearing the confusion this blogger is creating. I have read this other blogger’s bogus claim how Sony and Branca benefiting Michael while Michael himself telling us many time that was not so.

I think this blogger is seriously undermining the fans ability to dissect the truth from fallacy. Why is that this blogger reveal himself? We know why. I am sorry for those fans who are following and commenting on that blog praising the blogger for doing good job. They do not understand this blogger insulting their intelligent and laugh at them for fooling them. Are they out of their mind? Perhaps they are.

Come on people, it is so obvious that this blogger is a big fraud and twisting the truth and contradicting himself. I asked the same question when I read the bogus blog why Michael wanted Sony’s help in 2006 after what they have done to him. This is what I am talking about, undermining the intelligence of the fans to find the truth written everywhere that Fortress backed the two loans.

Oh my God the signature is so obviously different, and this is against the law you can’t do that. how did they get away? I am completely saddened. Please God help for JUSTICE.

Mimi - your last paragraph about the signature being so obviously different, against the law and how did they get away (with that)?

Maybe the same way they have gotten away with getting a fake will admitted to probate; judges, court officers, once an attorney gets his name in the lights of LA, whether deservedly or not, judges can't accommodate them fast enough. Michael left his children to his mother (per the will); however Katherine thought he died intestate (without a will), and I believe her attorneys were not strong enough in their argument to overcome the "glitz" of Branca.

@ Josie: I don't think Marlon's message to Michael about his twin brother is that unusual of the thing to say at a Memorial. In fact, I thought it was quite touching as well as a fitting thing to do. But, that's my opinion.

Thank you Bonnie for perfectly explaining the bogus claim the other blogger did that “Michael enlisted the help of Sony for the loans”. I keep thinking what would happen and how would we know all this without your undying dedication and Love you have for Michael.

Some of us maybe many of us would have been lost and believe this crap throwing at us with a speed of light.

Sometimes I can not thank you enough and there is no word in the English language and as a matter of fact in any language in the world that will explain my greatest gratitude I have for you. All I can say is I Love you and thank you.

Somebody in the justice department or some private investigaters has to do like a forensic kind of investigation about all this forgery, fake will, and like wise to bring it to the highest court if possible and make documentary for the world to see.

I have heard that the family has their own investigation going on. Can anyone confirm this?

I just want to chime in with the others wondering about a possible forged will, and about the fact that on the date the will was signed in California, Michael was in New York.

Probably most people think, so what, the day is just off a little. But have any of these people ever signed a will or trust in an attorney's office? Every little dotted "i" and crossed "t" is taken very seriously. You make an appointment to come and sign the final will, and the attorney also signs. I think in CA you don't need witnesses, but if they are needed, the law office provides them.

For a client like Michael worth hundreds of millions of dollars, it seems impossible to me that if Michael couldn't make the final will signing, they wouldn't change the date on the will to be correct whenever he did sign it. It takes like 2 seconds on a word processor.

@ Josie: No. I don't believe Marlon would've mentioned his twin if this was a hoax. He'd never mentioned such before to the best of my knowledge before the Memorial either. The only thing that I can recall was a very long time ago, it was stated that one of Katherine's children had been stillborn. I just never knew it was a twin to Marlon.

Bonnie...tremendous blog tonight. Great work! The second document above from October 2007 (showing Michael's real and beautiful signature) is so foretelling. He says he will soon share some "exciting" and "surprising" news from his other efforts. And only 20 months later our world fell apart! I'm not all that sure Michael's "surprising" news was intended to mean those London concerts. Would like to know your thoughts on that. And what the heck is that bulky mass under John Branca's jacket...a bullet proof vest? I'm looking at the connections between Prescient, Transitional, Fortress and New Horizon Trust. These are very interesting pieces of the puzzle. Michael was no dummy - he was brilliant! Now, if only he could come back!

Rhoda, thank you for your comments about the phony will. Michael's will was signed supposedly by him, and witnessed by Trudy Green, his former manager, along with John McClain, his now co-executor with Branca, and Barry Siegel, another lawyer (who a few months later resigned as executor), supposedly at 5 pm on Sunday, July 7, 2002. You are correct, the client usually goes to the attorney's office with an appointment. However, in this case it was the office of Branca, his ENTERTAINMENT attorney, not a probate attorney, to sign a will at 5 pm on a SUNDAY, in the presence of a former manager and two OTHER attorneys. This isn't a believable scenario, considering Michael was in NYC on Saturday, July 6th, through Tuesday, July 9th, with Rev. Sharpton. And you are further correct that will signings in an attorneys' office are usually witnessed by office staff if there are no others to witness, NOT by a manager and two other attorneys. Did all these important folks just happen to be there for the signing? When I worked in LA, I witnessed dozens of wills in the course of my employment. Doesn't this PARTICULAR will signing sound just a bit too cozy, with the will prepared by one of the executors and witnessed by two other executors and Michael's former manager? If it were done on a Sunday at 5 pm perhaps it would be necessary to "call in" office staff to act as witnesses, but, hey, if I was "office staff" who had the chance to witness Michael Jackson's will, I would have been more than happy to come to the office on a Sunday, wouldn't you? IMO, this will does not pass the smell test.

Josie - what Lady is talking about is the other “Blogger” not you. The other blogger I think posted a new blog today on his blog and Lady read it and made comment in that blog. Go back a few comments and you will see what she said in her comment. And the blogger responded to her with a snotty response in that blog not in this blog. It's not about you my friend.

@ Josie: I definitely wasn't talking about you. Have no fear. The "Blogger" to which I refer runs a site similar to Bonnie's except a twisting of the facts version, and one that seems to be "kinder" to Branca and Sony. I know...cough...cough...

@ Bonnie: As much as your blogging "evil twin" on the other site tries to hide their identity, with all of the spelling errors over there, I think your suspicions as to whom that individual is, is likely to be correct. Another thing that got me, is the snotty response I got to "Evil Twin's" blog entry today. The only thing I can figure is that the person got upset with me because I clearly stated that I wasn't an idiot. Maybe that's what that blogger wants over there? Oh well...But, that's my opinion.

Josie, about Marlon mentioning his twin brother at the memorial. I think if Michael were alive that would be very insensitive to his mother. I must have been a very traumatic experience to lose a child at birth, and to have one of your sons use that to muster up some tears would be hurtful. Michael IS gone.

Before we start to think Michael may have faked his death we have to remember what we're accusing HIM and his FAMILY of. For him to lie to the world, have his children and his family lie, exploit his children, have someone accused of killing him, make his fans believe he was murdered, while leaving "clues" that he faked his death.

The more I think about the idea of him faking his death, the more hurtful it becomes. Not because faking his death would hurt me, but because accusing him and his family of such things when they are really hurting breaks my heart.

Bonnie, at the end of this post you said "Michael was no pushover". Of course he wasn't, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be killed. Think about it; if he did this to expose the bad guys that would mean there was already a plot to murder him. If that is the case, you would think they would want to make sure he was dead. If there was no such plot then they have committed no crime. I can't believe Michael would do something like this as a game. I know he wouldn't.

If Michael's not dead, and there was no plot to murder him, all Sony is doing is buying what is SOLD to them. Branca is the one selling it. For Michael to fake his death to expose one man, Branca, is ridiculous. He would have just steered clear of him if he suspected him of something.

You're welcome Josie. Bonnie is a great investigator, I'll give her that. Not always do all of us totally agree with her conclusions, but we understand and can see where she gets them. When it comes to the death of Michael, ALL angles have to be carefully considered. Especially when there's so much "smoke" clouding things at times. However, if there is one thing that I know for certain, it's simply this... Where there is smoke...there is FIRE! Hugz...

Okay guys, I came across with this YouTube video of Donny Osmond talking about Michael on the one year anniversary of his death. He said he talked to him a year and so ago before he passed away while Michael was trying to hide in Arizona. Can you please listen to it and tell me if Michal was really trying to hide a year and so ago before he died. Why?

Lady - Awwww, I'm tellllll-iiiiiiiing! For ticking off Sony-blogger. I have not been back over there, but did the "snotty" reply sound anything like the snotty replies on a certain twitter account for a "journalist.blogspot"? Just curious. Never mind. You already answered that further down, LOL! Yeah, he doesn't like that. You have to be an idiot. I think he's prejudiced. We should file complaints against him for hate speech against non-idiots.

Micheline - I am cautioning everyone that even though I do see evidence of Michael being POSSIBLY alive, there is also evidence there that he is dead and I don't want to alienate anyone. I put the facts out there and people can research on their own and come to their own conclusions.

JUne - In California, does the signing of a will need to be notarized? I know in many states this is not really necessary but can be contested without notary based on that very thing. I could be wrong, but need to ask someone more knowledgeable (like YOU! LOL!)

Josie - You don't have to believe MJ is alive. All I am doing is putting info out there and telling you what I believe MAY BE based on what I found. I LIKE to have people discuss and analyze with me and many people see things I don't and visa-versa. The more we discuss and drill down, the more we learn. :o) Don't feel pressured here to believe anything. I believe there is a chance and there are MANY things not making sense. If he was alive and he came out at some point after ALL this, I'm not sure if I would want to hug him or choke him, LOL! (Sorry Mike! You know this is frustrating!)

Bonnie-I'm amazed at the number of comments that have been posted on this blog. You really touched a nerve. I'm reading and catching but i came across a blog that I think will be interesting to everyone, no matter where they stand on the hoax issue.

It's called Xscape:The Michael Jackson Story. The author is a medical professional and the essays that she's written on the autopsy and the drugs found at Michael's house are fascinating. She enlist the help of other professionals and professors, even a JD for legal matters. The information is presented on the site in a completely analytical way. I must add that this site says it is for BeLIEvers and those that aren't sure what to believe. Definitely interesting reading. check it out-

http://xscapemj.blogspot.com/

Also, I visited the "other" blog yesterday and all I can say is, Wow, the freelance blogging/journalism business must pay really well. The vacation photos were very impressive.

cynthiaL - LOL on the "vacation photos". Dang! I'm not making a cent! What am I doing wrong? (right?) I can't even afford Photoshop to CREATE pictures like that hahahaha! I have heard of xcapemj.blog before. I will have to check that out. thank you very much for posting.

Josie - I know EXACTLY how you feel. I was right were you are now about four months ago. I still cry, but now in anger over what was done to him.

I want to tell you that hope is not a four-letter-word (well it is, but you know what I mean). If Michael were not able to entertain the impossible, he would have never achieved so much, for so many people, in so many countries all over the world. Farcus would have never gotten a liver if Michael gave up. I remember that every single day.

"Micheline - I am cautioning everyone that even though I do see evidence of Michael being POSSIBLY alive, there is also evidence there that he is dead and I don't want to alienate anyone. I put the facts out there and people can research on their own and come to their own conclusions."

I included this on an earlier post and wanted to repeat it here because it was relevent.

You all may have seen this but just in case you haven't I thought I'd include this video that Brett Ratner did with Michael in 2003 before the rediculous allegations of that year.

I really enjoy this interview and what I really like is it's informality with a relaxed, at ease and occasionally philosophical Michael. He talks a lot about his creative influences, his love for entertainment, the importance of hard work...and more hard work, recommendations to those wanting to get into music business, the importance of believing in yourself no matter what, "study the greats and become greater" he says. He also shares his thoughts on the "power and magic of film" and its power to touch the soul.

He is also very critical of the corporate side of the music industry (no surprise here...:-) saying "not to trust everybody." In this interview, if you haven't heard it, he's speaking generally and not about any one company. These comments start at 2:59 of part 1 of the interview and are very relevant to this blog, especially the part about not trusting everybody (Branca, Mattola anyone?) and conducting yearly audits of labels:

Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvKwAXSVRU8

Part 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8tXCkIYgwo&feature=related

Partial transcript:

BR: "What is your greatest lesson learned?"

MJ: "Not to trust everybody, not to trust everybody in the industry. There's are a lot of sharks. And record companies steal, they cheat, you have to AUDIT them. And, it's time for artist to take a stand against them. Because they totally take advantage of them. Totally. They forget, that it's the artist who make the company, not the company who make the artist. With out the talent the company would be nothing but just hard ware. And just...you know...and a...it takes that real gut talent that the public wants to see."

Bonnie - you ask me above whether a CA will needs to be notarized. No, it doesn't, and there are some sources that say it shouldn't be notarized. When I worked on them, they were not notarized. Glad you asked me this, b/c a lightbulb just went on! There needs to be at least two disinterested witnesses; in Michael's case there were three witnesses, Green, McClain and Siegel (Siegel later withdrew as a co-executor), although he's still a witness to the will. But I'm thinking of McClain - though not named as a beneficiary, he sure seems to be getting paid as a co-executor of the estate. Is he really a "disinterested" party, as the witnesses are supposed to be? I'm going to dig deeper on this issue, although there's probably a loophole the execs can use whereby their exec fees aren't considered beneficial gain.

About Me

We are living in Biblically significant Times. Ironically it was the most persecuted man in modern history that lead me to dig deeper into the Bible and taught me more about God than any other human being on the planet. And that man is Michael Jackson.
I started a blog to defend him. I ended up researching him and learned just why they were after him. They did everything they could to shut him down. In the song "Cry" he said "take over for me", so that is what I am doing. God bless that man and his faith and strength

Michael And God

"Like the Bible says. A child should be leader of them all, and to be led by that kind of innocence. Didn't Jesus say 'bring on the children?' Be like the children. Not childish, but child-like. That kind of innocence."

Michael Jackson in the Martin Bashir outtakes

"Children show me in their playful smiles the divine in everyone. This simple goodness shines straight from their hearts and only asks to be lived." Michael Jackson Oprah Winfrey Interview

"I avoid using the term 'religion', because many people say 'my religion' this and 'my religion' that. Why should it be 'my' religion? I just believe what’s in the Bible with regard to which religion is involved. I simply believe.... I believe in it and I get down on my knees every night and thank God and ask Him to lead the way."

1979 Ebony Magazine interview

COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER

Copyright disclaimer; Under section 107 of the copyright act of 1976 allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship research, etc. This site may contain copyrighted material

the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is used solely for the purpose of private study and research which constitutes 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

Fair use is permitted by copyright stature

that might otherwise be infringing. Non profit, educational, or personal use tips the balance in favor of “fair use.” The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have interest in receiving the included information for their own research and study.